Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: Oral Arguments

Here is a precedent that worries me about Roberts and according to the above,link, Clarence Thomas could be the only conservative to vote vs it. This has far implications on what Roberts might do. OBY only needs 1 vote.

Note, the mandate to force everyone to get healthcare subject to
penalties rests with Roberts view here.
____________________________________________
There’s also Roberts's expansive view of congressional power to consider. This was exhibited most recently in U.S. v. Comstock (2010), where he sided with the Court’s liberals and endorsed a sweeping interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause that allowed federal officials to order the indefinite civil commitment of “sexually dangerous” persons who had already finished serving their prison sentences. The Obama administration’s legal defense of the individual mandate rests, in part, on an equally broad reading of that same clause.

I can't really say how anyone will vote, I gotta say, Kagan and Sotomayor seemed like they were trying to help the Solicitor General and the others (especially Kagan) but the other justices that spoke did seem to not agree at all with their stance (especially Bryer).

I will say, I did like how they clearly identified it's a penalty and not a tax. Now we'll just have to see if they agree it's unconstitutional to penalize someone for not entering into a private contract.

EDIT: Just finished listening, I can tell you which way Kagan is voting..

Re: Oral Arguments

This will go easily 6-3 to maybe 7-2 in favor of upholding the law. Four liberal judges will vote in favor while Alito and Thomas will vote against it. I am 80% sure Roberts upholds it and I am more than 50% sure Scalia and Kennedy also uphold it which would be 7-2.

Re: Oral Arguments

As far as Galen's predictions are concerned, they're "homer" as usual and as usual he has no idea what's going on.

From Hot Air.com

“Today’s Supreme Court oral argument transcript suggests that many of the justices, including at least three of the liberals, are skeptical of claims that the individual mandate is a tax. This is important not only for today’s argument about the applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act (which probably does not apply if the mandate penalty is not a tax), but to tomorrow’s argument about the constitutionality of the mandate. The federal government has argued that the mandate is constitutional because it is an exercise of Congress’ power under the Tax Clause. Lower courts have almost uniformly rejected this constitutional tax argument, and today’s questioning suggests that the Supreme Court is unlikely to accept it either.

“Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the mandate is not a tax because ‘Congress has nowhere used the word ”tax.” Justice Ginsburg noted that the mandate may not be a tax because it isn’t a ‘revenue-raising measure,’ and because the monetary penalty is separable from the mandate itself. Justice Sotomayor also expressed doubts about whether the mandate is a tax, as did several for the conservative justices. As far as I can tell, none of the justices seemed to support the argument that the mandate is a tax.

“Thus, today’s events do not bode well for the federal government’s constitutional tax argument.”

As far as Galen's predictions are concerned, they're "homer" as usual and as usual he has no idea what's going on.

From Hot Air.com

“Today’s Supreme Court oral argument transcript suggests that many of the justices, including at least three of the liberals, are skeptical of claims that the individual mandate is a tax. This is important not only for today’s argument about the applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act (which probably does not apply if the mandate penalty is not a tax), but to tomorrow’s argument about the constitutionality of the mandate. The federal government has argued that the mandate is constitutional because it is an exercise of Congress’ power under the Tax Clause. Lower courts have almost uniformly rejected this constitutional tax argument, and today’s questioning suggests that the Supreme Court is unlikely to accept it either.

“Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the mandate is not a tax because ‘Congress has nowhere used the word ”tax.” Justice Ginsburg noted that the mandate may not be a tax because it isn’t a ‘revenue-raising measure,’ and because the monetary penalty is separable from the mandate itself. Justice Sotomayor also expressed doubts about whether the mandate is a tax, as did several for the conservative justices. As far as I can tell, none of the justices seemed to support the argument that the mandate is a tax.

“Thus, today’s events do not bode well for the federal government’s constitutional tax argument.”

***

It's always seems ironic to me that the only site you ever seem to quote other than rush is "hot air". It's certainly is apropos. Anyway, i'll put some links up later when I get to my laptop. I have followed this closely since its origins and just about every legal scholar (yeah I know "scholar" doesn't bode well for the conservative mind but there is such a thing as being an authority on the subject) conservative or liberal see this as a matter of not a win or loss but a how big of a win for Obama and ACA.

Re: Oral Arguments

NC - I just caught the last end of the CBS news and it sounded like Roberts was saying - IT'S A LAW, IT'S FORCING PEOPLE TO BUY SOMETHING.

Am I interpreting this correct to say he is leaning vs it after what I posted above. I was shocked at his comments because he was emphatic. Is this what you heard? Please advise.

I heard that too. I also heard Bryer say. "Why do you keep calling it a tax" and Ginsburg said something to the affect of "a must buy provision".

Another thing that may bode well is the case that is in front of them is that the mandate is unconstitutional, so they need to only uphold that ruling. If the want to say it is constitutional than they need to overturn the lower court ruling.

This may be a better topic for someone with more legal knowledge than I, but I believe it's way easier to get the court to uphold rulings than overturn them.